OHS
Marks 11 Years of Raising Homeless Money
by
Tammy Antonille
The City and County funded Office of Homeless Services
has passed the milestone of ten years in existence, and champions the funding
generated by the office as its greatest accomplishment.
Activists in the community claim that Office has significant challenges,
but very few successes after 10 years in operation.
It was difficult to get information from Cuyahoga County
and specifically OHS staff about the tenth anniversary of this office.
Cuyahoga County Commissioner Tim McCormack promised an interview, which
never materialized, and director Ruth Anne Gillett only sent formal documents
that did not directly answer the questions that were asked. But through other
interviews and available statistics, from the information collected the Office
has coordinated a large amount of public funding to address the problem of
homelessness. In the last eight years over $81.1 million has been received
because of the work of the staff of OHS. Of
that total $77.4 million was received through competitive contracts, but
according to Brian Davis of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless a
great deal of these federal funds are divided up among the urban communities and
the states within the United States.
Davis, executive director of NEOCH, said, “The reality
is that the federal funds are there for Cleveland and Cuyahoga County to take.
If we horribly mess up on the application then we would loose the money,
but otherwise the $14 million per year is reserved for Greater Cleveland.
There is a complicated formula which determines how much goes to each
city if they complete the application to the satisfaction of officials at the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.”
Ruth Gillett, the current Director of the Office of
Homeless Services, was contacted by phone several times. Eventually an e-mail was sent asking her to respond to a
specific set of questions. In
return we received a fact sheet on the office and the goals and mission of the
Office of Homeless Services Advisory Board which is supposed to provide
community input and oversight to OHS activities.
This board meets only four times a year and is mandated to accomplish a
list of seven goals (see insert). The
goals, including facilitating interagency and intergovernmental cooperation to
assure private sector collaboration and participation as well as clarifying and
prioritizing the goals of the body that created the Office of Homeless Services.
Any board that is mandated to meet a minimum of four
times per year would have difficult time advising on these important issues
according to Davis. Donna Hawk, the
Chair of the OHS Advisory Board, stated that the OHS could improve and
accomplish much more but are seriously understaffed.
When she was asked about the goals and mission of the OHS she went
immediately to describing how good the OHS office was at attaining funds. She stated that OHS was originally set up to be the central
place for proposal development for federal funds to benefit the county and city
in order to maximize the local funding received.
She acknowledged that the goals have shifted and broadened, but was clear
on the fact that OHS was good at attaining funding.
Davis has presented a list of goals for the office that
are important to homeless people, and feels that the OHS has become
“captured” by social service providers to the exclusion of homeless people.
“I think that the Office is too friendly toward the major service provider
empires that has matured over the last 10 years.
The staff and advisory board has no relationship with homeless people,
which is a serious barrier to solving the problems of homeless people. They do not even have a legitimate mechanism to hear
grievances from homeless people who stay in County or City funded shelters in
our community,” said Davis.
What was missing from the documents Ruth Gillett sent
from her office was clear sense of the mission of the OHS. One bullet from the
fact sheet states that the purpose of OHS is to develop a Continuum of Care for
the Homeless Services, coordinate services, assist in planning and increase
resources. Clearly the office
acknowledges that they are responsible for making sure the funds are distributed
to the organizations that are making progress towards the goal of ending
homelessness, and to organizations that have the most impact on the problem.
But, except for the fact that funds were attained by the office, there is
no other positive news to share.
In fact, the
impact of some of the organizations that received funding is questionable at
best. Homelessness has increased in
Cleveland for the last 18 years according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
This is certainly not caused by OHS especially in the current climate of
unemployment and the state of the economy, but staff and advisory board has not
forwarded any real solutions to address this rising affordable housing crisis,
perpetual low wages, or lack of health care in the area. It could be that they
are understaffed as Donna Hawk, current director of Transitional Housing Inc.,
suggests. However, there are no notes from the Advisory Board minutes,
which indicate that any member has ever suggested that the Office is
understaffed or suggested a remedy that would involve an increase in staff.
OHS has four current staff and has one additional staff in development,
which is expected to be filled in the next two months.
NEOCH also has four full time staff, but relies on a large national
service contingent and volunteers to complete the huge workload.
Bill Resseger is the City’s liaison to the OHS.
His role is to interact with the OHS on the issues, problems and ideas
concerning homelessness. Resseger was also complementary of the ability of the office
to raise funds, but he clearly stated what he felt the mission of the OHS should
be. He suggested that they should
address the needs of the homeless, including shelter and services but also have
the goal to support a plan to move the homeless community back into permanent
housing. He states that the biggest
challenge of the office is understanding and changing the social and economic
dynamics that create the problem. He
also states that an array of powers and interests have to come together to
address the problem.
Resseger has a long history in working with homelessness
and those with housing problems. Resseger,
Davis and Hawk all agree that community leaders have got to make solving the
problems associated with homelessness a high priority.
Community leaders include owners of companies, media, City Council,
religious leaders, and regional elected officials, and all those interviewed
agreed that for the most part homelessness does not have the same energy
directed at finding solutions as it did ten years ago.
In order for the funds to be distributed properly, in
order for shelters to be built, maintained and supported in the community, in
order for the city of Cleveland to make progress towards ending homelessness, we
need to come together as a community and understand our strengths and weaknesses
according to Sr. Donna Hawk who was part of the body that recommended the
creation of the Office.
Recently, the Board voted to look at the goals of the
Office of Homeless Services in order to re-evaluate its operation and set
priorities. There are many concerns
over planning, funding, viability of the existing programs, and effectiveness of
the OHS to coordinate this diverse group of programs that should be addressed
over the next six months. There are
some broader community concerns like why is the business community not involved,
has Cleveland fallen behind other cities in addressing homelessness, and are we
getting the outcomes from the huge expense spent by the community that need to
be answered by elected officials.
Securing federal and state funds in order to support
programs for the homeless is undeniably important.
Coordinating this funding and completing the application is critically
important in the community. But
according to NEOCH and other leaders in the community that may be all the OHS
has successfully accomplished over the last 10 years.
It certainly raises a red flag for a journalist when
there is such hesitancy, secrecy, and unwillingness to communicate to the media
on all that was done over the last 10 years.
Normally, agencies are overwhelmed to talk about the great work that they
do, and shine a light on their accomplishments. “OHS staff and County officials are understandably hesitant
to talk about the role of OHS in addressing this homeless crisis, because there
are so many shortfalls in the grand plans of the early 1990s,” said Davis.
Copyright to the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the
Homeless and the Homeless Grapevine 2003.